The travel industry, and especially airlines, have become efficient carries of both passengers and the passenger's baggage. However, the passengers and the baggage are frequently separated, in that the baggage is often loaded, stored and unloaded from the aircraft, train, bus, etc., and thus not controlled by the passenger. Accordingly, the baggage is frequently lost, thereby necessitating additional time and expense for the carrier in finding and returning the baggage to the owners. This situation is exacerbated when the baggage is mishandled and ends up at a location different from the passenger's destination, or a different carrier may be holding an unclaimed bag while another carrier holds the loss report. It can be appreciated that passenger carriers have to address two different aspects of lost baggage, namely the administration of loss reports and claim requests, and then the unclaimed baggage itself and associated documentation and forms identifying the baggage. It can be appreciated that a significant expense to the transport carrier is the matching of lost baggage with the passengers. Not only does lost baggage create poor relations between the carrier and the passenger, but also additional personnel and equipment are required in order to find lost baggage and return it to the proper owner. In many cases, lost baggage is never returned to its proper owner and thus the transport carriers are bound to reimburse the passengers, frequently in excess of the actual value of the baggage and its contents.
The more rudimentary baggage matching systems are labor intensive, require additional personnel to fill out claim forms which include information that identify the baggage, contents, owner information, etc. Personnel are also required to physically inspect the lost baggage and inventory the content, as well as prepare documents that describe the baggage and list the contents. More sophisticated systems are computerized for coordinating the efforts to match claims with lost baggage and reduce the time by which lost bags are returned to the rightful owners. Such systems represent an improvement insofar as they increase the actual number of matches between lost luggage and the owners. FIG. 1 illustrates an example of the current baggage tracing systems. Typically, the matching of baggage has evolved as a two-step process, including a primary tracing time period followed by a secondary tracing time period. In the primary tracing time period, which normally includes a five day period following the loss, a majority of the baggage is returned to the owner as the owner's name, bag type, color, etc. information can be easily matched with a loss report filed by the owner. Primary tracing of lost baggage is generally carried out either by personnel physically, or more probably by intermediate-level computer tracing systems, such as shown in FIG. 1. A well-known baggage system, commonly known as Easytrac is shown associated with multiple domestic airlines. The Easytrac system is also shown associated with airline front-end systems that are especially adapted for accommodating lost baggage and matching the baggage with the owners. The arrows linking the Easytrac tracing system with the domestic carriers comprise computer data links for passing claim information and lost baggage information to the Easytrac system, where comparisons are made to match the claims with the lost baggage. A similar system, commonly known as Bagtrac, is shown operating between international carriers and the domestic airline front-end systems, as well as with the domestic front-end systems for the international carriers. Similar tracing and matching of lost baggage is carried out in the Bagtrac computerized system. The Easytrac and Bagtrac computerized tracing systems are primarily involved in matching lost baggage during the primary tracing period. The data terminals and personal computers utilized for entry of data in such systems provide for no video imaging capabilities and are not menu driven.
In the event luggage is not matched with its owner in the primary tracing period, it is transferred to a central baggage service office, whereupon a secondary tracing period begins in which further and more intense efforts are carried out to find the owner of the lost bag. Also, when a bag enters the secondary tracing period, the bag is opened at the central baggage service office and the contents are inventoried to further characterize the particularities of the bag for use in matching it with the owner. In addition, the bag is itself fully characterized as to the type of bag, maker, color, etc., together with the inventoried contents to form a computer file. The computer file of the bag and contents is transmitted to a centralized airline computer tracing system (ACTS) where the file is uniquely identified with a Standard Message Identifier (SMI) number known as an "SHL." Claims filed by the owners of lost bags are also entered into the ACTS system and are uniquely identified by a unique SMI number known as an SND. The computerized ACTS system is programmed with an algorithm for comparing the information of baggage files with the information of claim files to find either matches or near-matches. Near-matches comprise best guesses that have a reasonable probability of being the actual claim filed against the bag at issue. It can be appreciated that there are usually at least ten or twenty near-matches generated by the ACTS system for single pieces of luggage, and frequently the number of near-matches is much higher.
Match and near-matching of bag and claim files are transmitted back to the central baggage service offices and presented as printout copies for further analyzation by personnel. The personnel inspecting the match and near-match printouts may concur that a lost bag belongs to a particular owner, whereupon the bag is returned to the owner. More likely, the ACTS system presents numerous near-match printouts, whereupon personnel must compare the results and make a mental judgement as to which claim is the best match found by the ACTS system. The comparison of the near-match results provided by the ACTS system is time consuming and onerous and requires a certain degree of familiarity with the nomenclature of the near-match printout. For example, the ACTS system printout is not easily understandable, is not user friendly, and includes cryptic information that must be mentally transformed into other usable information for comparison purposes. For instance, information on a printout line may include "BN 22 PWX Pierre 0201." Such information defines a brown bag of type "22" with pockets and wheels, and made by Pierre Cardin, and where the bag was inventoried on the date " 0201." Further, other information may include "CCMMMM" meaning a jacket for a male, "FEMMM" meaning shoes for a male, HBXXX meaning a hat, SRMMMM meaning a sweater for a male, and "SSXXXX" indicating a sweatshirt. Further, both the claim printout and the bag printout of the near-match may include comments further identifying the bag contents, such as pictures or wording on the clothes, the titles of books in the bag, etc. A typical SND printout for a bag claim is shown below, immediately followed by only one typical SHL printout of an unclaimed bag as found by the ACTS system to be a near match.
__________________________________________________________________________ DALLZWN .MIAXEWN 181640Z MIAXE1S SND DALWN 01176 ORTlZ LO GY 29 XXX 0727 RC BLU RED/POUCH W TOOLS/SP GRY/FLAG CALIF.AZ/FE RUBBER BOOTS.NORELCO SANDER. FACE MASKS/TI LEVIS/2 BAGS LAX PHX FEMMMM HDTOWE RCMMMM SDMMMM SGMMMM SPCLOT TFZZZZ TIMMMM SHL G DALWN 80162 WN 216654 GN 30 XXX AMERIC 0813 13AUG TI 4 BLU/SD WILD PRINT.YLW TANK DO IT IN THE DIRT. BLK.BLU.YLW TANKS/SG DENIM/SD/ BLU WEST S SLEEVE/FE WHT TRAX SMF FEMMMM SDMMMM SGMMMM TIMMMM __________________________________________________________________________
As can be appreciated, tracing personnel must study the near-match printouts very carefully and compare the cryptic identifying information and thereby arrive at a best guess as to whether a match exists. Often, a match may be thought to exist, whereupon the baggage is returned, only to be again returned by a passenger as not being his or her baggage.
For the foregoing, it can be seen that a need exists for a baggage matching system that makes more efficient the process of matching claims with lost baggage. Another need exists for better information characterizing the baggage so that the matching process can be optimized. Yet another need exists for a system which is more user friendly for entering bag and claim information and for retrieving information, and to realize a system that is more easily utilized and training of personnel is made easier.